u/Additional_Ad3573

I am someone who believes Israel's government is doing many terrible things that violate the rights of Palestinians and don't really help it's standing on the global stage.

That said, opposing Israel's entire existence is usually antisemitic. I say that because most of the people who I talk to say that Israel shouldn't exist because it's a state where citizenship is given based heavily on ethnicity, but don't appear to take issue with other states that are very ethnically homogenous. For instance, as is true with ethnically Jewish people in relation to Israel, people that can trace part of their ancestry to Ireland through a grandparent can more easily immigrate to Ireland, ethnic Germans from the former Soviet Union and Eastern bloc can also immigrate more easily to Germany, immigration to Armenia is likewise easier for people of Armenian heritage, etc. The only exception I can think of where opposition to Israel's existence is not antisemitic is if someone opposes the concept of nation states in general and/or only favors states that are based purely colorblind. It's similar to how one can call out someone who happens to not be white for committing a crime, yet if one keeps calling out people who aren't white for committing crimes, then their motives for calling them out are probably racist.

I'm not completely sure exactly what would change my mind about this, but it would help me if someone could provide for me a logical explanation as to why Israel existing, even in the form of the two-state solution where Israel keeps its ethnic majority and Palestine keeps its ethnic majority, is meaningfully different from other ethnically homogenous nations, many of which treat difference races difference when it comes to immigration and such.

Anyway, I look forward to your replies:)

Edit: someone pointed out that it's also possible for someone to oppose Israel's existence, not due to antisemitism specifically, but because of anti-Americanism. My mind isn't entirely changed, but I think in a few cases, that can be the main motivating factor, particularly when it comes to people who are very opposed to American imperialism in general.

As a feminist, I'm very sympathetic towards those who have criticisms of the mainstream porn industry. And I completely agree that nobody, women included, should be expected to dress, look, or behave a certain way just to be accepted in society. Nonetheless, I believe most sex work, including porn, should generally be lawful, and I find that the arguments of feminists who argue in favor of banning or severely restrict porn, prostitution, etc are quite similar to that of conservative religious people who want to restrict women's bodily autonomy. For example, I've spoken to some feminists who go as far as saying that women who dress in revealing clothing are feeding into the patriarchy by appealing to the male gaze. I've also spoken to some feminists who say that both porn and prostitution are immoral and should be unlawful because they involve selling and/or objectifying one's body. With prostitution in particular, sure there are objectifying aspects of it, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong to do. After all, one could probably also say that any intimate behavior between people where the intention is physical pleasure and not procreation is technically a form of a objectification. Those arguments seem to me to be very similar to arguments that I've heard conservative religious people make about why women should have to be modest and pure in order to attract the right men and be taken seriously and not lusted after.

So to change my mind, I'm not entirely to sure what would work, but one thing that may help is if someone could provide me with examples of feminists who are opposed to all sex work but who don't make arguments like the ones I just described that border on shaming women for how they dress, act, etc. Otherwise, if someone could help me to come up with a meaningful difference between the arguments of both groups, I might be able to look at this a bit differently than I do now.

I look forward forward to any feedback I can get on this:)

Basically, what the title says.

Let me start by saying that I'm pro-choice, so this is not an endorsement of the notion that there should be not rape exceptions.

I understand that the the usual explanation for rape exception is the person giving birth did not consent to pregnancy as they didn't willingly engage in the activity where birth is a risk. However, that still doesn't fly, to me. After all, I have yet to hear anyone who makes that exception say that once the person is born, the mom has a right a right to take their life because she didn't consent to their conception.

So in order for me to change my mind, I would like it if someone could at come up with either an explanation for that exception doesn't involve appealing to whether the pregnancy was a result of consensual activity, or, more likely (as consent is honestly the only difference, making another explanation difficult to come up with), an explanation that does involve that but provides a justification for it that doesn't heavily imply that the person who makes that exception is merely trying to discourage women from being "impure". As it stands, every explanation I've been given for the exception strongly suggests that the primary motive of the exception is discouraging women from being "impure" before marriage.

Anyway, I look forward to any feedback on this I can get:)

Edit: I should probably clarify, based on feedback I've gotten, that my position is based on the fact that a majority of pro-life people, including those who make exceptions for rape, claim that their position is based on the fact life starts at conception and that is is therefore murder to end their life. For the minority of the pro-life people who make that exception but don't say that abortion is equal to murder and is instead simply something that is usually not moral, these contentions that I've expressed don't really apply. These contentions only apply to those who claim to oppose abortion on the basis that the fetus is a person with a right to life and that taking its life is on par with murder, but make carveouts for situations where they weren't conceived consensually.

Edit 2: multiple people have rightly pointed out that a major difference with rape is the pregnancy is a way more traumatic experience than if it's not a result of rape. As such, I'm willing to grant that the ethics of abortion could be a bit different in that scenario, from the perspective of that kind of pro-life person. Nonetheless, I still don't see a coherent way to advocate for legalizing abortion in that scenario, from that point of view. Instead, as things stand right now, that seems to me like it would be a justification for giving the mom a lesser sentence or perhaps only charging the doctor who performed the abortion with murder.

Edit 3: I appreciate the feedback I've gotten. I have not quite changed my mind, the the feedback that I've gotten here has made me realize that for at least some people who make rape exceptions, it's possible that they are generally opposed to abortion because it's taking a potential human life but don't necessarily believe the abortion is ever quite the same as murder. Perhaps some of them believe there should be legal consequences for elective abortions, but not consequences that treat it equally to murder. For them, I can somewhat understand how they might be more comfortable with making rape exceptions.

Let me just start by saying that I don‘t support West Bank settlements.

That said, I don’t believe the protesters at these synagogues are simply anti-settlement. Yet when I was talking to a relative who backs the two-state solution and is not radically anti-Zionist, they seemed to think the protest itself was not problematic because the stated goal of the demonstration was to oppose the sale of the settlements, regardless of the personal beliefs of the protesters. To them, it’s not the same as protesting a religion. The thing is, that point makes sense to me on its surface, but I still think the demonstrations are in very poor taste. How should I counter that relative’s point? Also, I’m not even sure at this point if that synagogue was helping sell West Bank property or sell property in Israel Proper. As I understand it, the specific groups behind the protests view Israel Proper and the West Bank identically